If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

KDE is not bending anything. Wayland does not have client-side decorations, Weston does. Wayland and Weston are not the same thing. Nothing in Wayland requires client-side decorations, and there is no requirement in Wayland that session compositors behave remotely similar to Weston. Neither KDE nor Gnome will use Weston as their session compositor, KDE will use kwin and Gnome will use mutter.

First of all let's be clear about one thing. The Gnome camp are the only DE intending to use the Wayland protocol as it was designed. KDE is already way ahead of bending intentions of the protocol. This will end bad.

I'm not familiar with any wrong doings on the side of KDE, nor am I particularly familiar with the it's inner workings. Can you be more specific or is this, as the other commenter suggested, a Weston thing?
Wayland is the library and protocol. Weston is a design reference compositor. It's somewhat like ARM's Mali core getting replaced. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, ARM and Wayland both were designed with that sort of modularity in mind.

Originally Posted by Honton

There is a large common pool of people who do Wayland and GTK hacking, so it really does not make sense to say GTK supports Wayland. Wayland and GTK are developed in conjunction by the very same people.

If there is hacking to be done, then support isn't obvious. Also, saying GTK and Wayland are developed by the same people doesn't entail support. People work on multiple projects that don't glue well together. Marketing likes to call it product interpolation or some other mambo jambo... Essentially, GTK support for Wayland is a work in progress much like Wayland itself.

Originally Posted by Honton

All your critism of Gnome are really minor and can be fixed or mitigated. I know because I do that myself.

In GTK's case, design problems like this aren't addressable without breaking backwards comparability which the developers are clearly not ready nor willing to do. It's reasonable enough on their part since there is a lot of code relying on them. But for new projects it's just unreasonable to use GTK and so I use Qt and EFL.
In Gnome's case, I just prefer the alternatives. My work flow isn't terribly affected regardless of what I use so it's a matter of convenience. I find Gnome3 clunky and uncomfortable in the same way I find Unity silly. When I can, I prefer E17 since I can tweak it just the way I like and I'm mostly content with it's design. But overall anything ranging from Openbox or Awesome to KDE works fine for me. I previously worked around some of Gnome3 issues using extensions and such, but I could never get it right like I can in E17. Again, it's all personal and I'm sure some people like the new Gnome, I'm just not one of them.

Originally Posted by Honton

Finding corporate support for other DEs are a much much tougher task.

Didn't I already mention KDE and EFL? Both have corporate support:
KDE: http://ev.kde.org/supporting-members.php
EFL: http://www.enlightenment.org/p.php?p.../sponsors&l=en
More so, both also receive indirect support. The EFL is indirectly supported by Intel through Tizen while KDE stands on Qt's shoulders.
And while I eschew on the validity of this corporate support notion, EFL's developing stuff is on Samsung's payroll. EFL\Tizen isn't just some project they support but rather a part of their product line tooling. Besides the cellular lines, Samsung is putting Tizen on anything from cameras and cars, to refrigerators. Even KDE's Qt is a product for a company. Intel on the other hand, has no direct invested interests in Gnome as far as I can tell. None of their products actually uses it so if there is any rational in supporting it, it's to mitigate Microsoft's hold on servers in small businesses by offering a comfortable linux alternative so they won't end up dependent on them. i.e. hedging their bets...